Isn't this JUST the kind of thing that belongs as a switch in /proc/syssomewhere?

On 16 Dec, Linus Torvalds wrote:> > > On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Alan Cox wrote:>> >> One problem is it follows it for a lot more than it used to. Following symlinks>> on creation is bad. It causes a lot of "symlink traps". 2.0 stamps on the>> symlink and tough the hacker loses.> > No, 2.0.x also followed symlinks for create(), I'm fairly certain. It used> to be pretty painful to do, actually, but others did it, and I think> people even pointed to programs that wanted it done.> > But yes, 2.1.x would tend to do it more aggressively for other things than> just create().> >> I'll have a look at the stuff if its supposed to be easy to fix 8)> > It really should be a matter of just making a 1 (follow_links) a 0.